COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. Criminal Appeal No.523 of 2018 is filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the acquittal of accused vide judgment in C.C.No.81 of 2013 dated 08.02.2017. Criminal Appeal No.591 of 2018 is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the acquittal of accused vide judgment in C.C.No.84 of 2013 dated 08.02.2017. Criminal Appeal No.592 of 2018 is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the acquittal of accused vide judgment in C.C.No.82 of 2013 dated 08.02.2017, and Criminal Appeal No.627 of 2018 is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the acquittal of accused vide judgment in C.C.No.83 of 2013 dated 08.02.2017. Since parties in all the appeals are one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed off by way of this Common Judgment.

2. The appellant company herein is the complainant before the learned III Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. A private complaint was filed to punish the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant company is a public limited company and the 1^st respondent/1^st accused is a partnership firm represented by its partners A2 to A7. A3 is the signatory of the cheques in question, in all the cases. According to the complainant, all other accused, i.e., A2, A4 to A7 were responsible for the day to day activities of A1 partnership firm and are jointly liable.

3. Briefly, the case of the complainant company in all the cases is that the complainant company’s products, which are fertilizers, chemicals, and pesticides, were supplied to the respondents/accused on a regular basis as part of a business understanding. The products were delivered by the complainant company and accepted by the accused firm. Towards payment of the outstanding amounts for the products supplied, cheques in question were issued. The following cheques, when presented for clearance, were returned unpaid on the ground of, “payment stopped by drawer”, and in Crl.A.No.627 of 2018, the reason for return of the cheque is, “insufficient funds”.

4. The learned Magistrate examined witnesses on behalf of the complainant and the documents marked by them. Heavy reliance was placed on Ex.P11, MOU dated 31.03.2004, to substantiate the outstanding to be paid by the accused to the complainant company. Learned Magistrate, having considered the evidence on record, acquitted the accused on the following grounds:

1) As per the MOU dated 31.03.2004, it is not clear whether the cheques were issued towards the liability of the complainant firm or towards the liability of another firm namely M/s.Vaishnavi Chemicals.

2) The MOU is in between the complainant company and two firms, namely M/s. Sri Lakshmi Agencies (A1) and another firm M/s.Vaishnavi Chemicals, and both were represented by A2. B.Sudhakar.

3) Ex.P6, which is a photocopy of the partnership deed dated

01.04.1998, shows that A2 and A3 are not partners of A1 firm. In the complaint cause title, A2 is shown as partner in M/s.Vaishnavi Chemicals and A1 firm is not shown to have been represented by any partner.

4) In Ex.P11, th